Religious Liberty does not excuse rudness, hatefulness, or bullying

[Ormond]

6 hours ago, zelticgar said:

I'm always skeptical of these "this is what happened to my friend on facebook" examples. Maybe there is not enough information available but this one just seems a little too conveniently set up to create a debate to show that something the government did created a mandate for religious people to be assholes.  My experience is that religious people are assholes about their beliefs without any help from the government. 

Unless I am reading this wrong, it sounds like Scot has a friend who is transgender. The "transgender friend" has a "religious friend" who apparently feels empowered to write a message declaring that because of some kind of executive order signed by the president they now feel it necessary to declare that because of their religious beliefs "religious friend"  intends to not respect "transgender friends" wishes to be called a certain name.

Unless I am missing something I am assuming that "transgender friend" has transitioned already? Why then would "religious friend" not have addressed their deep religious concerns prior to action taken in the executive order? If you have a religiously held belief prohibiting you from recognizing a transgendered persons request to be called a different name what does anything the government does have to do with this view? I'm just not getting the point of using the executive action as the motivation for all of a sudden making this declaration if "transgender friend" has already transitioned? I would assume that email would have come over right at the time the person became aware of the transition. 

And just to head off any debate on this - I am not calling Scot a liar, he has more than proven himself over the years, I just question the original story.

 

Uh, the "rude" or "hateful" person does not have to agree with your logic. Unfortunately, many of them don't. The main difference that is probably perceived is that as a result of the executive order that the person will be protected from being fired or otherwise disciplined by their employer because of their harassment. They may be very wrong about that conclusion.  But it is supremely believable to me that someone might refrain from openly stating their prejudice before the executive order because of fear of the consequences, and now feels emboldened because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that those consequences just won't be there. 

Second, there are many different kinds of "religious persons". There is a good chance this particular person is a "cultural Christian" with an authoritarian personality who is much more invested in disliking those they perceive as being "different" and going against conservative social norms than by any real spiritual convictions. Authoritarian personalities are by definition more likely to be openly aggressive or abusive when they perceive that the "authorities" in society are behind them. And you can't find a much bigger "authority" in American society than the POTUS. 

[Altherion]

11 hours ago, zelticgar said:

Why then would "religious friend" not have addressed their deep religious concerns prior to action taken in the executive order?

Although Ormond's second paragraph is also plausible, by far the most obvious and most likely reason is fear. There are some reasonably well publicized examples of what happens to people who publicly support what until now has been the losing side on certain cultural issues and based on these, it was highly inadvisable to do so if one values one's well-being. Recent events (including but not limited to the EO) have almost certainly altered this perception.

The truly unfortunate thing here is not so much the nature the views held by either side, but the extent of the bifurcation within a single society. That is, the two sides now regard each other as something pretty close to Evil with a capital E. The odds of this ending well are not high.

[karaddin]

I like how the post questioning the truth of story makes it sound dubious that Scot even has transgender friends on FB. And Altherion - I don't really give a fuck if the other side views how I live my life as evil if they're happy to let me live my life and let God sort me out. Where I view them as evil is when they do everything they politically can to deny me rights, deny me from public spaces and harass children like me into taking their own lives. You're not going to change that perspective with some complaining about how bad it is for society and (intentionally or not) equating the two as similar.

[zelticgar]

Karaddin, 

I thought I was pretty clear that I am not questioning Scot's story and there is nothing in my post to indicate I don't believe the person exists or that Scot has a transgendered friend. 

To strip this all down, I'm basically saying that if the religious friend is a big enough asshole to write an email like that then it seems pretty likely they would have extended that message to the transgendered friend regardless of any actions the government takes to shield them from liability. It just seems a little dubious that the EO was the catalyst for that action. 

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, zelticgar said:

Karaddin, 

I thought I was pretty clear that I am not questioning Scot's story and there is nothing in my post to indicate I don't believe the person exists or that Scot has a transgendered friend. 

To strip this all down, I'm basically saying that if the religious friend is a big enough asshole to write an email like that then it seems pretty likely they would have extended that message to the transgendered friend regardless of any actions the government takes to shield them from liability. It just seems a little dubious that the EO was the catalyst for that action. 

And again, I think you just don't understand the psychology of assholes very well.

 

[Xray the Enforcer]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

And again, I think you just don't understand the psychology of assholes very well.

 

I was just about to say this. 

[DunderMifflin]

On 5/6/2017 at 8:03 AM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I think the extent of the bullying is relevant. The odd upsetting comment should be brushed off by most people and forgotten about in almost all circumstance. Thats different to a sustained campaign of intimidation and bullying behaviour which can ruin peoples lives. 

My fear is we end up in a sanitised world where everyone is self censoring to the point of becoming static. I think we are already at a point where the fear of offence is so massive due to the plague of over-reaction that exists, that everyone ends up with an underlying resentment of each other. 

To answer your question, I don't think there is any justification in 'an eye for an eye' behaviour, or 'he started it' sort of thinking. Retaliation does nothing but create escalation in many cases. And you can't allow one group to have one type of behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated were another group to be doing it.

I just meant like I notice people that deem themselves or are deemed by others as oppressed or victimized by society can often get very aggressive and engage in bullying but are rarely called out on it if ever. It's like theres an heir of an 80s action movie star where there's permission given to be a hostile douchebag as long as you claim that  all your bullying is done in the name of some sort of higher morality. And it gets extended even further in that you merely have to claim you are doing your bullying on behalf of others that you feel are oppressed.
For example should a minority get more leeway to openly preach homophobia?
Or should a gay person get special exception to be racist? Or should a self identitified Democrat get special permission to vilify and bully others by falsely calling them nazis?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I just meant like I notice people that deem themselves or are deemed by others as oppressed or victimized by society can often get very aggressive and engage in bullying but are rarely called out on it if ever. It's like theres an heir of an 80s action movie star where there's permission given to be a hostile douchebag as long as you claim that  all your bullying is done in the name of some sort of higher morality. And it gets extended even further in that you merely have to claim you are doing your bullying on behalf of others that you feel are oppressed.
For example should a minority get more leeway to openly preach homophobia?
Or should a gay person get special exception to be racist? Or should a self identitified Democrat get special permission to vilify and bully others by falsely calling them nazis?

I guess its a bit like that Milo creep who thinks he can get away with being racist and homophobic because he dates black men and is gay. The answer is 'no you can't act like that' even if you are a minority. 

Like I know racism is often seen as only a 'white' issue, but in reality racism exists in every race and culture.. western white people are probably some of the least racist people around if you think about it.

[DunderMifflin]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I guess its a bit like that Milo creep who thinks he can get away with being racist and homophobic because he dates black men and is gay. The answer is 'no you can't act like that' even if you are a minority. 

Like I know racism is often seen as only a 'white' issue, but in reality racism exists in every race and culture.. western white people are probably some of the least racist people around if you think about it.

Might be the "should be that way" answer but it doesn't seem to be applied that way in reality.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, DunderMifflin said:

Might be the "should be that way" answer but it doesn't seem to be applied that way in reality.

Agree. Some use it as a shield.

[Theda Baratheon]

I think transgender or just trans is the correct way to say, not transgendered which I have absolutely never seen a trans person use.

Also ...

Zelticgar...it speaks volumes that you would assume that this kind of thing doesn't happen or might be staged when it makes total sense to me and other people in this thread who are part of the LGBTQ+ community that this would totally anf does totally happen to people. 

There is no merit to to discussing whether or not this story is true? Why waste time believing it's a lie and not trying to deal with the more than likely fact that it is an actual thing that actually happened to a trans person. 

[Robin Of House Hill]

On 5/5/2017 at 11:22 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Theda,

That is not my intent.  My intent is to present this in an idiom that people cannot dismiss or ignore.  That they would recognize as unacceptable because it is comparable to common courtesy they would extend to anyone they happened to meet.

 

Ser Scot,

I was trying to stay out of this, but that didn't go according to plan.  Trying to rationally discuss one small point of an irrational act is doomed to failure, because it focuses solely on the appearance of the act, rather than its substance.

Is the example you gave where someone refused to call a transgender person by their chosen name, worse because it is rude, than the Pope likening transgender people to nuclear weapons, or saying that modern theories regarding gender were trying to undo God's plan?

Focusing on common courtesy, rather than the hate behind the lack of it, is saying that form is more important than substance.  Both the the example you gave and the one I gave, are manifestations of the same sentiment.  They do not believe that transgender exists.  Rudeness is not an issue.  In fact, if anything, I know that the rude ones are being honest in expressing themselves.  I'd rather hear that, so I know what the world is really like.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Focusing on common courtesy, rather than the hate behind the lack of it, is saying that form is more important than substance.  Both the the example you gave and the one I gave, are manifestations of the same sentiment.  They do not believe that transgender exists.  Rudeness is not an issue.  In fact, if anything, I know that the rude ones are being honest in expressing themselves.  I'd rather hear that, so I know what the world is really like.

 I get your point, and I think it's a good one, but in the context of friendship (even if we're talking about an online friend) it is extremely rude. I don't understand this person's point of view on many levels, but it is especially jarring from the "friendship" perspective. If that's how you feel, why would you ever friend me in the first place? 

Totally agree on the honesty angle. These folks let you know who they are when they do this kind of thing. This enables you to write them off with a clear conscience and lets you know where you stand with them ultimately. 

[Theda Baratheon]

38 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I get your point, and I think it's a good one, but in the context of friendship (even if we're talking about online friend) it is extremely rude. I don't understand this person's point of view on many levels, but it is especially jarring from the "friendship" perspective. If that's how you feel, why would you ever friend me in the first place? 

Totally agree on the honesty angle. These folks let you know who they are when they do this kind of thing. This enables you to write them off with a clear conscience and let's you know where you stand with them ultimately. 

Again one would hope that dangerous and hateful would be more important than rude. It's still hateful and dangerous for a supposed friend to behave in that way and I think it's more important to emphasise that than their rudeness. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

 

 

2 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Again one would hope that dangerous and hateful would be more important than rude. It's still hateful and dangerous for a supposed friend to behave in that way and I think it's more important to emphasise that than their rudeness. 

Someone behaving as hatefully as the email I quoted in my orginal post is not the action of anyone I would call a friend.

[Robin Of House Hill]

No matter how it is said, or what words are used, it simply boils down to, "my beliefs are more important than our friendship.  If that person had said, "my beliefs do not permit me to do certain things, so please realize I have to do these things,"  it would have sounded more civil, but meant nothing different.  If someone punches me, should I care if they were smiling or not?

[Rippounet]

Is the ACLU wrong, then?

https://9gag.com/gag/aVq9K0O

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Is the ACLU wrong, then?

https://9gag.com/gag/aVq9K0O

No, I think that's a fair way to look at it. That said, in this instance do you think the writer of the email could use this defense? What religious belief is being violated by calling someone by a name that they prefer?

[HexMachina]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Is the ACLU right, then?

https://9gag.com/gag/aVq9K0O

Yes they are wrong. Otherwise you are in a situation where people are refusing to provide a service based on someone's sexuality. E.g. I can't Officiate a civil partnership service for that gay couple as it's against my religion. I can't offer relationship counselling to that lesbian couple because I think homosexuality is a sin. Etc. It defeats the whole purpose of equality legislation by allowing discrimination in the provision of basic services. There may be some cases where such an approach is reasonable (I can't think off any offhand, but I guess there are probably some) but they should be the exception to the general rule. 

The wording actually isn't helpful on this front either. In the provision of services at least, by not doing something because of your religion, you are almost always going to deny someone else the right to/access to something else, be it marriage, hotel rooms, counselling services or what have you.

[Relic]

On 5/5/2017 at 2:11 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay, regardless of how people feel about transgender people, how is that not being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole?  

This is why religion is currently the greatest evil plaguing human society. When your spiritual philosophy comes with clauses that allow you to feel superior to others than your philosophy is a great detriment to the spirit of cooperation that human society relies on to grow and advance. 

And obviously the belief in an afterlife allows religious people to avoid thinking about the finite nature of life, and thus devalues what is probably everybody's single shot at existence. It literally allows people to reject reality, and even to throw away their unique and invaluable lives.